Friday, April 27, 2012

Did Sgt. Smith Forget His Memory Pills?

The Liestoppers forum has posted the deposition transcript
of Duke police first
sergeant Gary Smith. Smith’s name would be known to people who followed the
case very closely as the Duke employee who, in violation of FERPA, handed over
the lacrosse players’ keycard information to the DPD—and then, at least
according to the implied Duke version of events, initially didn’t tell anyone
what he did.

Perhaps Sgt. Smith needed to take a few of Grandma’s pills
before being deposed. Over the course of the session, he claimed that he could not recall:

·Whether he had ever worked with Mark Gottlieb
before the lacrosse case;

·From whom he “heard rumors” that Gottlieb was
biased against Duke students;

·The contents of former Duke PD office
Christopher Day’s report, from which Smith claimed to have initially learned
about the lacrosse case;

·Whether Officer Day changed his initial accurate
report (as he did, seemingly under pressure from higher-ups at Duke);

·Whether the case was initially a subject of
conversation in the Duke PD;

·Whether there was, in fact, any conversation about the case in the Duke PD in the early days;

·Whether he had ever supplied e-mails to the DPD;

·Whether or not he supplied prior reports about
the lacrosse players to the DPD;

·Whether Gottlieb requested from him the names
and contact information of the lacrosse players, or whether he supplied this
information on his own initiative;

·What role DPD captain
Phyllis Cooper had in his being appointed the “sort of” (his words) lead
investigator on the case (on that matter, he deemed his memory “wishy-washy”);

·How many investigators were employed in the Duke
PD at the time of the lacrosse case;

·Whether he had any conversations with Capt.
Cooper about the case;

·Whether or not Duke had previously declined to
exercise jurisdiction over alleged crimes in rental properties the university
owned;

·How he described, to his Duke superiors, the
information he supplied to Sgt. Gottlieb;

·What type of assistance he gave to Gottlieb
later in March, which Gottlieb had commented on in his typed “notes” (on this
point, Sgt. Smith claimed that too much time had passed for him to remember
what he did with Gottlieb on what was doubtless the biggest criminal case of
his career);

·Whether DPD officers entered into the “private
residence” of Duke students in Sgt. Gottlieb’s nighttime excursion into the
Duke dorms, when Gottlieb was trolling for information outside the presence of
the students’ counsel;

·Whether he gave to the DPD two additional
reports about the lacrosse players, as the Gottlieb notes claimed;

·Whether he ever had a conversation with Gottlieb
about what Crystal Mangum told the DPD;

·Whether or not he had ever supplied the DPD with
students’ FERPA-protected keycard information on any case other than the
lacrosse case;

·What basis he used to select the students whose FERPA-protected
keycard information he voluntarily turned over to the DPD;

·Whether he turned over Devon Sherwood’s FERPA-protected
keycard information to the DPD;

·Whether he counted how many names were on the
lacrosse roster;

·The nature of his conversations with his DukePD
superiors over whether FERPA applied to the keycard information;

·When he spoke to his DukePD superiors about
whether keycard information was FERPA-protected (he said it was simply too long
ago for him to remember this critical conversation);

·Whether he referenced the lacrosse case in his
conversation with DukePD superiors about whether keycard information was FERPA-protected;

·Whether in a late-March conversation with his
DukePD superiors he admitted that he had turned over the keycard information;

·Whether he asked his DukePD associate, Sgt.
Stotsenberg, not to reveal to anyone else that Smith had turned over the
keycard information (Smith had already confessed his violation to Stotsenberg,
who initially was the only DukePD officer to know of the keycard turn-over);

·Whether he had ever discussed with Stotsenberg
the possibility of a deposition in the lacrosse case civil suits;

·Whether any such conversations referenced the
keycard information.

Sgt. Smith also claimed not to have known at the time of the
allegations that:

The three captains voluntarily gave police
statements;

The three captains offered to take polygraph
tests;

Duke owned the house that the three captains
rented;

What Gottlieb was thinking when Sgt. Smith
informed Gottlieb that the keycard information was likely FERPA-protected;

In 2007, his superiors were discussing whether
he should be disciplined for turning over the FERPA-protected keycard
information.

When he occasionally shook free of his memory-induced haze,
Smith did make a few damaging admissions.

He admitted that he wouldn’t give the DPD social
security numbers of Duke students, because that’s “private” information. (Why
the FERPA-protected keycard info didn’t also apply under this standard Smith
did not say.)

In a question about his assisting Gottlieb
during his nighttime excursion into the lacrosse players’ dorms, he suggested
that he saw no problem, as a DPD officer, in helping the DPD ferret out Duke
students for questioning even though he knew these students were represented by
counsel. Then, however, under effective questioning, Smith admitted it would
not have been “proper” for Gottlieb to have entered the students’ dorm rooms as
part of his interrogation project.

Smith admitted that the Duke PD didn’t follow
its own procedure regarding the Gottlieb nighttime excursion; those procedures
require that “all requests for interviews of students by the Durham police will
be coordinated with [DukePD] Director Dean.” He offered no explanation as to
why procedures weren’t followed.

He admitted that he had volunteeredto supply Gottlieb with the FERPA-protected
keycard information.

He admitted that he made a conscious decision not to tell his DukePD superiors that he had
turned over the FERPA-protected keycard information—because, he admitted, he
was afraid he might get in trouble.

In his e-mail to Gottlieb suggesting that he get
a subpoena for the improperly turned-over keycard record, he admitted that he
blind-cc’d Duke PD director Dean, which he didn’t regularly do—suggesting that
the DukePD leadership was involved in the after-the-fact scheme to concoct a
legal rationale to turn over the keycard information. (He said he didn’t
remember who told him to blind-cc Dean.)

As to whether he had an obligation to inform the
Duke students whose rights he had violated about what he did, “It never occurred
to me.”

He had—and as of December 2011, still has—“no
opinion” about the “integrity” of the Nifong-Gottlieb investigation. Wow.

The “courts” found that the falsely accused
players “weren’t guilty, and that is sufficient for me.” In fact, of course,
the Attorney General exonerated the
players, and deemed them innocent,
not simply not guilty.

Nothing in the Smith deposition should give any confidence in the integrity of the DukePD.

There is a truth, which is not cynical, because it is true: police sometimes lie.

They lie because they believe the greater good is to convict a criminal who otherwise might escape conviction; they lie to protect other policemen, including their superior; they lie to protect themselves from retribution within the police department.

But, they lie. Many times, judges pretend to believe lying policemen.

This is the experience of anyone who has ever spent a significant amount of time at court trials of all kinds.

Jurors need to have this understanding as part of their ordinary experience as they weigh the credibility of police testimony, in any case, at anytime.

Just because a policemen shows up to testify in uniform, with badge on chest, does not necessarily mean what you are hearing is the truth.

You used the very words I was going to write. The lack of integrity of people at that university is stunning, just stunning.

A faculty member at Duke told me that in the lacrosse case, at every turn, the administration always acted in a slimy way. As far as I am concerned, they need to empty the Allen Building and leave it to the roaches, the spiders, and the four-legged rats. At present, the rats in Allen are two-legged.

My dad told me .... Early in life..probably as a teenager...before Dunning-Kruger...that he would like to buy me for what I am worth and sell me for what I think I am worth. He was both smart and wise. Doubt if the sentiment expressed originated with him. I've expressed it to my children and grandchildren.

Sgt Smith made some ill-advised decisions early on. Having a solid ethical framework serves one well, regardless of one's calling.

One can be charged with perjury for "not recalling" any event of significance if it is clear that the purpose is obstruction and evasion. EIther SMith is taking medication affecting his ability to recall events, or his memory is so bad that he suffers from a debilitating mental illness. Or he is just lying. Likely, he is just lying.

Every now and then, one runs across a witness who thinks he or she is outsmarting everyone by simply claiming an inability recall events. It never works.

The deposition reveals that the Duke Police Department considered disciplinary action against Sgt. Smith for his activities, including improperly turning over the FERPA-protected key card data to Sgt. Mark Gottlieb.

Could there have been a quid pro quo explaining Smith's "memory loss" and the destruction of some of his notes? Smith has already admitted turning over the key card data. Why is he protecting his superiors by conveniently not remembering when he told them that Gottlieb already had the data?

Shame and more shame, heaped on these people. Duke will not recover any semblance of integrity untill all those involved in this slimy fiasco are gone. Houston Baker, the infamous foul mouthed one, referred to the LAX guys as farm animals. The way it looks to me, I'd rather be a cow than a snake.....the 88, the Allen building, the BOD.....reptiles, all.

WRAL is running a story that Shella has quit as Mangum's attorney....probably got fed up with her antics and the infamous Dr. Harr......who inappropriately and, some would say, illegally posted PHI all over his web site. Hooray for Shella....run, pal.Who is sister gonna get for an attorney? Cline

“…Consider the example from Durham in 2006. There, District Attorney Nifong had no case against three of Duke's lacrosse players who had been falsely accused of rape. But he obtained a grand jury indictment after officers lied to the jurors (who heard 80 other cases that same day, and returned true bills of indictment for all of them).All Nifong needed thereafter was intimidation, not a trial……”

Duke is a private, tax-exempt charitable trust--meaning, that should its handling of its funds become questioned, the Attorney General should intervene (as with any public charity) to determine if the trustees are abusing their authority and misusing those funds.

(As, for example, using millions to pay for what in effect may be their own personal legal defense, in the guise of defending the school).

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review